☣ Coronavirus ☣

Springal

Well-Known Member
Can't get onboard with some of these snarky comments towards Ministry of Sound for their grant. They're probably one of the biggest nightclubs in terms of employees and whilst maybe not 'cool' - they are a well run business and if you were going to give a significant amount of money to Ministry of Sound or some small independent I know who I would bet on still being around in 12 months time. But also great to see places like Corsica & Soup Kitchen get grants though. Right thing to do is a mix of all types and sizes.

Also how come WHP gets a grant? They don't own / run any venues, they are a promotions company.
 
Last edited:

IainB2

Member
@ElrowLovers whats this about no clubbing in Holland until a vaccine? Just seen something on twitter and thought of you!
There seems to be a major disconnect between what the politicians think the vaccine will achieve and the reality.

It is expected the first vaccines will not provide sterilising immunity (you will still be able to be infected and transmit coronavirus after the vaccine) It's possible this will be the same for 2nd/3rd generation vaccines as well.

The vaccine makers are not even testing for sterilising immunity during the trial.

It's also expected the vaccine will be about 50% effective.

The below link contains some interesting quotes from Kate Bingham chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce and the WHO.
Less than half UK population to receive coronavirus vaccine, says task force head

A couple of quotes are


"Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis. "

"David Nabarro, special envoy to the World Health Organization on Covid-19, also told the FT that addressing the coronavirus crisis was “not going to be a case of everyone getting vaccinated”.

He added: “There will be a definite analysis of who is the priority for the vaccine, based on where they live, their occupation and their age bracket. “We’re not fundamentally using the vaccine to create population immunity, we’re just changing the likelihood people will get harmed or hurt. It will be strategic.”

Based on reality I've translated what the Dutch Prime Minister really means and a quote from an eager vulnerable clubber.

Dutch Prime Minister said "Nightclubs in Holland will not be opening until the most vulnerable are vaccinated."

We asked 75 year old Lars from Rotterdam his opinion and he said. "I am looking forward to the vaccine so I can hit the clubs again, I know its 50/50 whether the vaccine will even work for me but it a risk worth taking..."
 

ElrowLovers

Active Member
@ElrowLovers whats this about no clubbing in Holland until a vaccine? Just seen something on twitter and thought of you!
Yeah I read the article too. It's because our national roadmap has 4 phases with corresponding measures... 1-4.
Level 1 is the lowest level shown, where the phase is called 'vigilant'. In phase 1 we're talking about 0-50 positive test (I still resist saying infections) on 100.000 people. In that phase nightclubs and discotheques still show as closed.
Therefor the conclusion of the press is...even in the most favorable scenario or situation...clubs remain closed and apparently they can only re-open with a vaccin because there is no level 0 on the roadmap. Dutch prime minister even acknowledged that the clubs will stay closed until the most vulnerable are vaccinated. Also, the nightlife gets no additional financial aid from the government so lots of business will die while they should have been flourishing now with ADE dates approaching.

It's insane and it's a form of gaslighting. We are being made to believe we should be happy that in phase 1 we can have seated places in bars.

Haven't replied in this topic for a few days, but still convinced we need to learn to live with this virus (i.e Sweden) and actually protect that very small vulnerable group instead of thinking lockdowns and vaccins are gonna save us.
 

Tourist

Active Member
re: London clubs, if anyone deserves support Corsica does. The best parties i went to in the last 20 years, the friendliest most committed crowds, an owner who was one of us and worked his back off whilst losing his wife to cancer.

Meanwhile total chaos in BCN, bars and restaurants open then told to shut then told to open. Regional gov overruled by court, gov ignoring court because order didn't come through in time. A living nightmare for people working across the industry.
 

stivi

Super Moderator
Staff member

Hally

Well-Known Member
Yeah I read the article too. It's because our national roadmap has 4 phases with corresponding measures... 1-4.
Level 1 is the lowest level shown, where the phase is called 'vigilant'. In phase 1 we're talking about 0-50 positive test (I still resist saying infections) on 100.000 people. In that phase nightclubs and discotheques still show as closed.
Therefor the conclusion of the press is...even in the most favorable scenario or situation...clubs remain closed and apparently they can only re-open with a vaccin because there is no level 0 on the roadmap. Dutch prime minister even acknowledged that the clubs will stay closed until the most vulnerable are vaccinated. Also, the nightlife gets no additional financial aid from the government so lots of business will die while they should have been flourishing now with ADE dates approaching.

It's insane and it's a form of gaslighting. We are being made to believe we should be happy that in phase 1 we can have seated places in bars.

Haven't replied in this topic for a few days, but still convinced we need to learn to live with this virus (i.e Sweden) and actually protect that very small vulnerable group instead of thinking lockdowns and vaccins are gonna save us.
Genuine questions

Covid rates in the UK are rising dramatically. If false positives are such an important part of the picture why are they going up?

How in a country of mixed generation households and where a huge number of frail older people are cared for by younger people do we shield the vulnerable?

I get the economic arguments. Totally. The reality is less restrictions the more Covid. More Covid more hospital admissions as well as death. And it wont be just people with Covid dying because the hospitals will be totally f****d (also when people talk about covid deaths va cancer etc they ignore the fact that too much Covid means more people will die of other things as we cant care for them). Hospitals in January barely cope in a good winter, at the rate we will be totally f***ed.

Sorry for being grim but just back from work and its bad_114939181_optimised-community_infections_bars16oct-nc.png
 
Last edited:

tclubber

Active Member
The vaccine makers are not even testing for sterilising immunity during the trial.
And this means the supposed lack of sterilising immunity is nothing but an invention of coronasceptics. There is no data to prove it.

It's also expected the vaccine will be about 50% effective.
Proof?

"Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis. "
Sure. But it's the danger to these "most at risk" people that causes problems. If those are vaccinated, we don't need to be bothered about the virus anymore and can go on clubbing just like before Covid-19.

He added: “There will be a definite analysis of who is the priority for the vaccine, based on where they live, their occupation and their age bracket. “We’re not fundamentally using the vaccine to create population immunity, we’re just changing the likelihood people will get harmed or hurt. It will be strategic.”
This simply means there will be not enough vaccine for everyone at first, so the govt will need to prioritize. This is actually good news - it means by prioritizing the vaccine to those who need it most, the danger from Covid-19 will be eliminated before everyone gets vaccinated.
 

IainB2

Member
And this means the supposed lack of sterilising immunity is nothing but an invention of coronasceptics. There is no data to prove it.


Proof?


Sure. But it's the danger to these "most at risk" people that causes problems. If those are vaccinated, we don't need to be bothered about the virus anymore and can go on clubbing just like before Covid-19.


This simply means there will be not enough vaccine for everyone at first, so the govt will need to prioritize. This is actually good news - it means by prioritizing the vaccine to those who need it most, the danger from Covid-19 will be eliminated before everyone gets vaccinated.
No lack of sterilising immunity it not an invention of coronasceptics, it what experts say is most likely. I don't think there any vaccine that provides sterilising immunity for viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract?

There is no proof of efficacy at the moment but based on onions of expert I have read I think 50% would be a good result.
 

MrHullMysterious

Well-Known Member
No lack of sterilising immunity it not an invention of coronasceptics, it what experts say is most likely. I don't think there any vaccine that provides sterilising immunity for viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract?

There is no proof of efficacy at the moment but based on onions of expert I have read I think 50% would be a good result.
Probably right but that is same for flu jab too?

As for 50% efficacy, thing as mentioned before, that is the bare minimum any vaccine must achive as recommended by WHO, the can of course be better than this.

There is a lot of talk of the manufacturers/scientists that if trials show at least 50%, they might stop the trial and just get it approved an out.

The idea been to reduce prevalence by 50% would be a massive game changer. Then further vaccines are researched that have higher efficacy.

It doesn't mean 50% is best they can hope to achieve.

Some vaccine trials are reporting next month their data, so guess will have to wait and see.🤷‍♂️
 

MrHullMysterious

Well-Known Member
Actually seasonal flu is only 30-60% which is surprising but I guess "good enough" to manage flu without having to make everyone sit at home in the naughty corner 😬

 

Attachments

The Pfizer chairman has just written an open letter to the public re vaccine development. Worth a read. They think they can start roll out in the third week of November if all goes to plan. Potentially positive for the US, not sure where that leaves the rest of us. Will be interesting to see if Pfizer will licence the product and what pressure they will come under to do so.

As we get closer to an important data readout from our COVID-19 vaccine program, I wanted to speak directly to the billions of people, millions of businesses and hundreds of governments around the world that are investing their hopes in a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine to overcome this pandemic. I know there is a great deal of confusion regarding exactly what it will take to ensure its development and approval, and given the critical public health considerations and the importance of transparency, I would like to provide greater clarity around the development timelines for Pfizer’s and our partner BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine.

There are three key areas where, as with all vaccines, we must demonstrate success in order to seek approval for public use. First, the vaccine must be proven effective, meaning it can help prevent COVID-19 disease in at least a majority of vaccinated patients. Second and equally important, the vaccine must be proven safe, with robust safety data generated from thousands of patients. And finally, we must demonstrate that the vaccine can be consistently manufactured at the highest quality standards.

To ensure public trust and clear up a great deal of confusion, I believe it is essential for the public to understand our estimated timelines for each of these three areas.

As I’ve said before, we are operating at the speed of science. This means we may know whether or not our vaccine is effective by the end of October. To do so, we must accumulate a certain number of COVID-19 cases in our trial to compare the effectiveness of the vaccine in vaccinated individuals to those who received a placebo. Since we must wait for a certain number of cases to occur, this data may come earlier or later based on changes in the infection rates. As Pfizer is blinded to who received the vaccine versus the placebo, a committee of independent scientists will review the complete data and they will inform us if the vaccine is effective or not based on predetermined criteria at key interim analysis points throughout the trial. Pfizer will continue running the trial through its final analysis point even if it is declared effective at an earlier stage. In the spirit of candor, we will share any conclusive readout (positive or negative) with the public as soon as practical, usually a few days after the independent scientists notify us.

A key point that I’d like to make clear is that effectiveness would satisfy only one of the three requirements and, alone, would not be enough for us to apply for approval for public use.

The second requirement is to prove that the vaccine is safe. Our internal standards for vaccine safety and those required by regulators are set high. In the instance of Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. for a potential COVID-19 vaccine, FDA is requiring that companies provide two months of safety data on half of the trial participants following the final dose of the vaccine. Based on our current trial enrollment and dosing pace, we estimate we will reach this milestone in the third week of November. Safety is, and will remain, our number one priority, and we will continue monitoring and reporting safety data for all trial participants for two years.

And finally, if we achieve a positive efficacy readout and a robust safety profile, the last requirement will be the submission of manufacturing data that demonstrates the quality and consistency of the vaccine that will be produced. Pfizer has been investing at risk since the early days of the pandemic to perfect our manufacturing processes and rapidly build up capacity. We expect to have our manufacturing data ready for submission before the safety milestone is reached.

So let me be clear, assuming positive data, Pfizer will apply for Emergency Authorization Use in the U.S. soon after the safety milestone is achieved in the third week of November. All the data contained in our U.S. application would be reviewed not only by the FDA’s own scientists but also by an external panel of independent experts at a publicly held meeting convened by the agency.

The timelines above reflect our best estimates of when these important milestones could be achieved. For 171 years Pfizer has been known for our high-quality standards. Our purpose is to discover breakthroughs that change patients’ lives. I cannot think of a breakthrough that would be more meaningful to a greater number of people than an effective and safe COVID-19 vaccine.

In the meantime, I hope you and your loved ones are staying safe and well.
Albert
 
Last edited:

Neo95gt

Well-Known Member
No lack of sterilising immunity it not an invention of coronasceptics, it what experts say is most likely. I don't think there any vaccine that provides sterilising immunity for viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract?

There is no proof of efficacy at the moment but based on onions of expert I have read I think 50% would be a good result.
Almost all of the trial data I’ve seen shows the vaccine triggering neutralizing antibodies, which means sterilization immunity. Of course we need to see the efficacy data from the Phase 3 trials, but sterilization immunity is very likely across the board for the leading vaccine candidates. No idea where you are getting your info.

Also, the vaccine chief in the US is estimating vaccines to be 80-90% effective.
 

2H76

Active Member
Think in the UK the last three days have seen a continual small decline in cases, and deaths remain steady. What I reckon will happen next is that there will be a 2-week lockdown - full with the schools shut so they lose one week after HT. If cases go down, then it won't solve the issue of what caused the spike, was it educational facilities (the obvious cause to me) or the pubs (the scapegoat). So when the kids go back, and the numbers rise again, Boris has the awkward decision to close stuff down over Xmas.
If a further lockdown meant the schools open, but cases rose, then they would have to admit it's the schools/colleges/unis spreading covid.
 
Top